Canadian politics thread

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/bi...licit-drug.pdf

It took me 15 seconds to find the report that details what welfare is saying. Less time than it took for you to type your completely useless post. Though this report doesn't delve in to the mental health issue it's common knowledge that abuse of opiods damages the brain.


See the above report. The first safe injections sites in Vancouver opened in 2000, and public policy has continued to coddle the weak in the years since. The result? The pandemic BC has now. In 2017 the DTES Insite location recorded 175,464 visits (an average of 415 injection room visits per day) by 7,301 unique users; 2,151 overdoses occurred with no fatalities due to intervention by medical staff. 1,458 people still died in 2017, how many of those were saved by the staff but died later anyway is unknown.

Before people start defending the numbers due to the introduction of fentanyl know this: the users like it. If someone OD's that person's dealer actually gets more junkies vying to buy from them because they know the dealer is selling powerful stuff. BC's handling of opioid drug addicts has COMPLETELY failed, and instead created a monster that has spiraled out of control.

Just to clarify: You are against Insite?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

See the above report. The first safe injections sites in Vancouver opened in 2000, and public policy has continued to coddle the weak in the years since. The result? The pandemic BC has now. In 2017 the DTES Insite location recorded 175,464 visits (an average of 415 injection room visits per day) by 7,301 unique users; 2,151 overdoses occurred with no fatalities due to intervention by medical staff. 1,458 people still died in 2017, how many of those were saved by the staff but died later anyway is unknown.

I'm not entirely clear on the point you're trying to make here, by that data Insite has prevented deaths of users (some people see that as good, others bad) and also handled 2,151 OD's which reduces the load on the ambulance service and hospitals since they'd be the ones handling all those incidents otherwise. Regardless of what side of the fence you're on that reduction is a good thing.

[welfare]

These policies are also being carried over to prisons. Needle "exchange" will be implemented in Canadian prisons nationwide next month.
Making it even less likely for an addict to get clean while inside.
Not that we enforce our laws to give them that chance anyways.

[EvoLove]

Am i the only one who was looking for this $12/barrel to buy? last i saw it was in the 20s

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by underscore

I'm not entirely clear on the point you're trying to make here, by that data Insite has prevented deaths of users (some people see that as good, others bad) and also handled 2,151 OD's which reduces the load on the ambulance service and hospitals since they'd be the ones handling all those incidents otherwise. Regardless of what side of the fence you're on that reduction is a good thing.

The point is Insite had to save the same number of people in 2017 as all OD deaths for the previous three years. That's the same number of people that died from an OD between 2003 and 2012 combined! And yet almost 1500 still died in 2017 and the trend for 2018 is to surpass that number.

No, I am not against Insite on principal. However the social acceptance, removal of stigma of use, and crazy amount of funding going towards degenerate junkies has made it OK to be an addict in BC. In the report you can see the spike in OD deaths on days these people receive their welfare cheques!

Originally Posted by underscore

Even if that's the case, until they do [hit rock bottom] they create a lot of headache. Strain on the police, EMS, and general public when they're stealing to purchase illegal substances and then ODing repeatedly due to lack of consistency with the products they consume.

This is exactly what is happening at an increasing rate.

Originally Posted by underscore

Personally I'd rather allow people to go to facilities where they can have access to whatever they're addicted to in a controlled environment, for free. Overall it'd save money, reduce deaths, and cut the income of organized crime.

It's not free, it's on the backs of taxpayers. Cost is increasing, deaths are skyrocketing, and organized crime / dealers are still the primary suppliers of the increasing number of users. 2100 people wouldn't have OD'd at Insite if they were being given drugs controlled by the government.

They are being enabled, they are taking advantage of not having to clean up because the government is making it so they don't have to, they are costing taxpayers more every year, and they are putting tremendous stress on first responders and the health care system to the detriment of people who didn't choose to inject illegal drugs. This is bad policy.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

The point is Insite had to save the same number of people in 2017 as all OD deaths for the previous three years. That's the same number of people that died from an OD between 2003 and 2012 combined! And yet almost 1500 still died in 2017 and the trend for 2018 is to surpass that number.

I'd rather have Insite saving them than the EMS. I would imagine the speed of response at Insite being higher than EMS would impact those numbers as well.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

No, I am not against Insite on principal. However the social acceptance, removal of stigma of use, and crazy amount of funding going towards degenerate junkies has made it OK to be an addict in BC.

This is why I strongly believe things like homelessness and drug addiction need to be dealt with at the national level, not provincial or municipal. Nowhere will want to do too good of a job helping the homeless and rehabbing addicts because then you'll just get those from other areas coming there, either on their own or via useless shitheads like Ralph Klein who "fix" a problem by giving everyone bus tickets to another province.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

It's not free, it's on the backs of taxpayers

By that I meant free to the users. It's already on the backs of taxpayers, either we can pay to provide safer access to users or we can keep paying for the EMS to deal with OD's, the RCMP to deal with organized crime, dealers and theft, and ICBC to repair smash and grabbed vehicles.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Cost is increasing, deaths are skyrocketing, and organized crime / dealers are still the primary suppliers of the increasing number of users. 2100 people wouldn't have OD'd at Insite if they were being given drugs controlled by the government.

That's why I'm saying free to use gov't run facilities would be a good thing. Deaths, OD's, organized crime income and the overall cost to taxpayers would drop significantly. I also suspect addicts would have a much easier time getting clean when they decide to do so.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

They are being enabled, they are taking advantage of not having to clean up because the government is making it so they don't have to, they are costing taxpayers more every year, and they are putting tremendous stress on first responders and the health care system to the detriment of people who didn't choose to inject illegal drugs. This is bad policy.

Hence why it would be ideal to have a separate system dedicated to dealing with it, removing the stress on the system used by people who aren't addicts. Some either can't or won't clean up either way, so we may as well minimize the impact that has on everyone else.

[m4k4v4li]

they should have insite but just let them OD
just up the fent potency daily until DTES is empty

[welfare]

lol i don't think they'd need insite for that.
they'd just need to stop sending respondents.

the problem is just going to spiral out of control. just like it has been in portland, seattle, san fran, any other major cities who've adopted harm reduction.
and then we'll just throw our hands up and legalize it all.

since the powers that be have moved to legalizing marijuana, the cartels have shifted focus to heroin and meth, flooding the market.

legalize it all so the gov can be the dealers and the rest of us have to pay.

[Berzerker]

Free drugs for addicts but lets charge people for Insulin. Fucked up world we live in.

Macron facing a vote of no confidence tomorrow. Can we get that on Trudope?

Berz out.

[Traum]

Don't think we've touched on this on at all?

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/horgan-says-b-...rage-1.4217406

Horgan says B.C. crunching numbers on possible dental coverage

Premier John Horgan said the government has started crunching the numbers on what it would cost to cover some basic dental care for uninsured residents.

"Oral health is important to the well-being of individuals and also self-esteem," Horgan said.

The premier couldn't confirm whether there would be funding for new dental coverage in the next provincial budget, but said the province is considering the possibilities.

"It's very costly and it's in the tentative stages but it's something that's important," Horgan said.

During Ontario's last election campaign, provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath pitched a dental plan that would offer coverage to 4.5 million people – roughly the entire population of B.C. – at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion.

Though public coverage might be expensive, dentists said it would take the burden off emergency rooms, where people who can't afford regular cleaning and dental exams often end up.

Dr. Hussein Shivji of Asante Dental Centres said when uninsured patients ignore problems to avoid the cost of care, their condition can become much worse.

"Something that could have been treated early on with preventative measures ends up becoming a much more expensive and extensive surgical procedure," Shivji said.

Some of the people who would benefit the most from public coverage include seniors, anyone on a fixed income and workers in part-time jobs, Shivji added.

I am not going to say that government-assisted dental care is going to be a bad thing, but the obvious thing is, gov-covered dental care is going to be hella expensive for the taxpayers. Furthemore, if current government-assisted healthcare programs are any indication, the province-provided amount is going to be so inadequate that it won't nearly be enough to cover for the chair time of the dentist. That means either the dental care providers are going to balk at it, or they will demand a co-payment from the patient.

[ajei]

Originally Posted by Traum

Don't think we've touched on this on at all?

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/horgan-says-b-...rage-1.4217406

I am not going to say that government-assisted dental care is going to be a bad thing, but the obvious thing is, gov-covered dental care is going to be hella expensive for the taxpayers. Furthemore, if current government-assisted healthcare programs are any indication, the province-provided amount is going to be so inadequate that it won't nearly be enough to cover for the chair time of the dentist. That means either the dental care providers are going to balk at it, or they will demand a co-payment from the patient.

possibly like NHS dentistry in the UK.

[mikemhg]

It would be a good thing. I work in the industry, and it's quite ridiculous that Canada does not offer some type of basic dental coverage under MSP.

Besides, such a change would likely reduce costs on employer based dental plans if such coverage is coordinated with MSP, which is a win win.

Not all social welfare systems are a zero sum game.

[Mr.HappySilp]

So much for "The budget will balance itself" by Trudeau . In fact it will be balance till 2040.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4787265/f...-balance-2040/

Federal budget won’t be balanced until 2040, Finance Department says
The federal budget won’t be balanced until at least 2040, the Finance Department said Friday, providing fresh figures for parties looking to position themselves with voters as the best stewards of the public purse.

Federal officials estimate it will take another 22 years to get a balanced budget – five years earlier than the Liberal government predicted last year – if there are no major economic shocks or new government spending.

Long-term budgetary projections suggest that by the end of fiscal year 2040-2041, federal books will be in surplus by $1.7 billion, based on current assumptions for how the economy will grow and expectations that Liberal programs to help boost business investment will yield a financial windfall for the country – and for federal coffers.

All the assumptions make the figures “subject to a fair degree of uncertainty,” the report warned.

The figures are sure to play a key role in October’s federal election where the country’s finances will seep into spending and tax promises the parties will make to voters. Finance Minister Bill Morneau said the Liberals’ long-term spending plans balance “smart investments in Canadians with sound fiscal management” but opposition parties argued the government can’t be trusted with its spending promises.

The Trudeau Liberals promised during the 2015 election to balance the books by the end of their mandate – 2019 – after running annual deficits of about $10 billion. Instead, the deficit figures rose sharply and federal books are expected to finish this fiscal year, which ends in March, with a shortfall of $18.1 billion.

The annual update on the long-term outlook for federal finances says that if things go better than expected, the budget could be balanced – or almost so – by 2024.

If the economy doesn’t grow as fast as predicted – and there are already signs an economic slowdown is on the horizon – then the deficit could get worse until 2034.

“We’re at the peak of the global economic cycle. This is as good as it gets,” Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre said.

“If the federal government is running a $20 billion shortfall in its best year, then imagine how dreadful the situation will be in its worst year. It would be like if you had your best year at work and you also max out your credit card.”

NDP finance critic Peter Julian said his party doesn’t have an aversion to deficits, as long as the spending makes a difference in people’s lives instead of deficit-financed tax incentives for corporate CEOs and businesses.

“There’s this real disconnect between Mr. Morneau and Mr. Trudeau’s willingness to throw money at the corporate CEOs, and to take us into deficit as a result, and the crying needs of Canadians that aren’t being addressed,” he said.

Federal officials say the government’s finances appear sustainable over the long term because the Liberals’ favoured fiscal number – the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product – is expected to decline over time. That’s a way of measuring how heavy the debt burden is compared with the size of the national economy rather than just tallying the total the federal government owes.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said cash-strapped provinces and territories could use the projection on the debt-to-GDP ratio to pressure Ottawa to cover a larger share of the costs for any new national programs. Estimates from Page’s team at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa and the current parliamentary budget officer suggest provincial and territorial budgets aren’t sustainable over the long run.

“This is a sensitive intergovernmental relations public policy issue and will continue to be so through the 2019 federal election, particularly as the federal government raises the prospect of a national pharmacare program,” Page said.

He also questioned the timing of the report’s release, suggesting the two decades of deficits was likely a major reason for releasing the document days before Christmas.

“It is a well-written report. Too bad it is released in a way that limits debate,” Page said.

Separately Friday, the Finance Department said Ottawa ran a small surplus of $92 million between April and October, compared with a deficit of nearly $6.6 billion in the same period last year, as revenue increased faster than spending.

For the month of October, which is as far as the latest report goes, the federal government posted a deficit of $1.1 billion, compared with a deficit of about $400 million in the same month last year.

The government’s debt stood at $669.5 billion as of October. According to Friday’s federal projections, that figure will peak at almost $960 billion in the same year the budget reaches balance.

[wreck]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

So much for "The budget will balance itself" by Trudeau . In fact it will be balance till 2040.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4787265/f...-balance-2040/

Federal budget won’t be balanced until 2040, Finance Department says
The federal budget won’t be balanced until at least 2040, the Finance Department said Friday, providing fresh figures for parties looking to position themselves with voters as the best stewards of the public purse.

Federal officials estimate it will take another 22 years to get a balanced budget – five years earlier than the Liberal government predicted last year – if there are no major economic shocks or new government spending.

Long-term budgetary projections suggest that by the end of fiscal year 2040-2041, federal books will be in surplus by $1.7 billion, based on current assumptions for how the economy will grow and expectations that Liberal programs to help boost business investment will yield a financial windfall for the country – and for federal coffers.

All the assumptions make the figures “subject to a fair degree of uncertainty,” the report warned.

The figures are sure to play a key role in October’s federal election where the country’s finances will seep into spending and tax promises the parties will make to voters. Finance Minister Bill Morneau said the Liberals’ long-term spending plans balance “smart investments in Canadians with sound fiscal management” but opposition parties argued the government can’t be trusted with its spending promises.

The Trudeau Liberals promised during the 2015 election to balance the books by the end of their mandate – 2019 – after running annual deficits of about $10 billion. Instead, the deficit figures rose sharply and federal books are expected to finish this fiscal year, which ends in March, with a shortfall of $18.1 billion.

The annual update on the long-term outlook for federal finances says that if things go better than expected, the budget could be balanced – or almost so – by 2024.

If the economy doesn’t grow as fast as predicted – and there are already signs an economic slowdown is on the horizon – then the deficit could get worse until 2034.

“We’re at the peak of the global economic cycle. This is as good as it gets,” Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre said.

“If the federal government is running a $20 billion shortfall in its best year, then imagine how dreadful the situation will be in its worst year. It would be like if you had your best year at work and you also max out your credit card.”

NDP finance critic Peter Julian said his party doesn’t have an aversion to deficits, as long as the spending makes a difference in people’s lives instead of deficit-financed tax incentives for corporate CEOs and businesses.

“There’s this real disconnect between Mr. Morneau and Mr. Trudeau’s willingness to throw money at the corporate CEOs, and to take us into deficit as a result, and the crying needs of Canadians that aren’t being addressed,” he said.

Federal officials say the government’s finances appear sustainable over the long term because the Liberals’ favoured fiscal number – the federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product – is expected to decline over time. That’s a way of measuring how heavy the debt burden is compared with the size of the national economy rather than just tallying the total the federal government owes.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said cash-strapped provinces and territories could use the projection on the debt-to-GDP ratio to pressure Ottawa to cover a larger share of the costs for any new national programs. Estimates from Page’s team at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa and the current parliamentary budget officer suggest provincial and territorial budgets aren’t sustainable over the long run.

“This is a sensitive intergovernmental relations public policy issue and will continue to be so through the 2019 federal election, particularly as the federal government raises the prospect of a national pharmacare program,” Page said.

He also questioned the timing of the report’s release, suggesting the two decades of deficits was likely a major reason for releasing the document days before Christmas.

“It is a well-written report. Too bad it is released in a way that limits debate,” Page said.

Separately Friday, the Finance Department said Ottawa ran a small surplus of $92 million between April and October, compared with a deficit of nearly $6.6 billion in the same period last year, as revenue increased faster than spending.

For the month of October, which is as far as the latest report goes, the federal government posted a deficit of $1.1 billion, compared with a deficit of about $400 million in the same month last year.

The government’s debt stood at $669.5 billion as of October. According to Friday’s federal projections, that figure will peak at almost $960 billion in the same year the budget reaches balance.

who didn't see this coming?

the lazy voted him in, and in turn devastated the country.

[DragonChi]

LOL @ people that think that major projects can be done in 4 years.

[Manic!]

When was the last time the budget was balanced?

[68style]

I’ve been hearing every politician in Canada say they are balancing the budget since I was born.

Liberals claimed they did it in BC........ but they sold all the land the province owned to developers on the cheap and bankrupted ICBC to do it... so was it really balanced? Ever?

[Bouncing Bettys]

Cutting services to make the budget seemed balanced in the here and now only ends up costing more in the long run, but they don't care - that's the next government's problem.

[Infiniti]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys

Cutting services to make the budget seemed balanced in the here and now only ends up costing more in the long run, but they don't care - that's the next government's problem.

Welcome to Ontario!

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by Manic!

When was the last time the budget was balanced?

Just before the election when the Conservatives cashed in the GM stocks in order to produce a "balanced" budget.

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by 68style

I’ve been hearing every politician in Canada say they are balancing the budget since I was born.

Liberals claimed they did it in BC........ but they sold all the land the province owned to developers on the cheap and bankrupted ICBC to do it... so was it really balanced? Ever?

Obviously not.

We need to move away from the status quo of politics, which has been a self-serving exercise for politicians for decades, but people keep voting against change because ... ??? ...

We're stuck in this 2-party, left vs. right, politicians gain, special interests gain, general public loses system at every level of government.

[Hondaracer]

You're kidding yourself if you think the country is in better shape under JT than it was, or would have been, under Harper.

[DragonChi]

Better protest by not smoking that marijuana. Every toke you take is a toke thanks to JT, we both know that Harper would have never legalized it.

[Hondaracer]

Legalizing it just tricked the dummies to get out and vote, if anything the legal system is worse than what we had in place before

How much tax revenue do you generate from ONE dispencery ffs..

[Nlkko]

It's not a big deal for governments to be in deficit. Governments takes on debts all the time to finance projects. Countries like US or Canada don't have to pay it all back before taking on more debts. Perks of having healthy economies and a wealthy population.

"Balancing the budget" or "hey, we're fucked we're in deficits" are soundbites to trick the people who don't know any better.